-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Phil Spencer: Parity is a hell of a Clause
- Thread starter Neuromancer
- Start date
MomoPufflet
Member
"Please don't give a name to this thing that we're doing-- it's bad PR for us."
Neuromancer
Member
Until they stop doing it.
bananafactory
Banned
Can't tell if serious
FlashFlooder
Member
So, it still exists... They're just not calling it that. Glad we cleared that up.
He's not entirely sure, which is why he goes on to explain what is, in essence, the parity clause.
I think it's just idle sport now to see how many ways they can get MS to spin the same lie.
krypt0nian
Banned
Victim blaming is a bad thing.
And if you're an Xbox end user you are the one suffering because you're getting far less games.
RowdyReverb
Member
Why do people get so bent out of shape over asking for fresh content when you release a game a year later on a platform? It sounds like a totally reasonable request. If the exact same indie game on PS4/PC in 2014 released on Xbox in 2015, how would they possibly generate buzz for sales? It would just be like, "hey, you can now buy this old game people used to talk about on our platform, too". Announcing it with new content helps buoy an otherwise underwhelming re-release.
Crayon
Member
Mmmm. Me neither. That would be what I call a "Hard Trolling" if not serious.
FlashFlooder
Member
How can MS be this out of touch? They're clearly not in a position to be making these sorts of demands.
I am. It's third parties who should refuse to do this. Unless this is specifically about release dates and not graphics. Then it sucks for everyone and MS is indeed to blame.
Edit: Yes I think this is just about release dates. Sorry, my bad.
I don't have an Xbox.
Ninja Scooter
Member
How about just letting your consumers decide if they want the game? What if not every game needs new content? What if the developer is small and can't reasonably afford to add new content?
Because adding new content is not just a flip of a switch and costs developers money they may or may not have.
Also, so what that a game is coming to your platform a year later? It will be new to many.
krypt0nian
Banned
Look above you at Xbox owners that think this is fine even though it's costing them games. Out of touch is fairly common when you don't bother to actually think.
LiquidSolid
Member
Yeah, let's blame those dastardly 1-5 person teams for taking a deal with Sony in exchange for timed exclusivity. Poor little Microsoft's doing the right thing.
But hey, It's also logical that "third parties" would just opt for completely avoiding the Xbone altogether because of this policy. If Xbone owners are happy to miss out on great games like Hotline Miami, I guess that's their choice.
bananafactory
Banned
Third parties cannot afford to refuse, in most cases releasing on as many platforms as possible lets them keep putting food on their table and if they're really successful make a new game
There's not some mountain of cash on their bed they can just lay back on when they turn down a console with an install base of 10 million + potential customers
Primethius
Banned
Sounds like the stance is the same as always.
Parity clause remains an incredibly stupid idea.
Parity clause remains an incredibly stupid idea.
Oh I see
You're right about that.Liking vs it being a requirement *if deal has been made in the past elsewhere.
Add to that things like Super Meat boy that have been released with no extras. A game that a deal with Nintendo and Microsoft in the past.
FlashFlooder
Member
They're asking sometimes very small teams to create additional content on top of the work it takes to port the game, for the "privilege" of having the game on Xbox. Microsoft should just be glad to get the game. It's good for their customers. But they're not interested unless they can "one-up" the competition.
I know there are plenty of year(s)-old exclusives I would gladly pay for on my system of choice.
Neuromancer
Member
Because it doesn't sound to me like they're asking. They're forcing or they're taking their ball and going home.
OrbitalBeard
Member
What games is it costing XB1 owners, outside of Sony-backed titles and timed exclusives (The Witness, Helldivers, Axiom Verge, Rime, etc.). I'm genuinely curious. Are there games we know about that will never come to XB1 because of this clause? Again, I'm seriously asking. A game I honestly thought would never come to XB1, The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth, due to that dev's public disgust with XBLA, is launching soon. I feel that if that game can make it to the platform, just about anything can.
bananafactory
Banned
Obviously we cant know if they'll eventually come, but this was a good thread with insightful posts from actual game developers
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=947986
I thought this was about those suppossed deals where big third parties would release games with the same graphics on Xbone and PS4 so no version would look worse than the other. My bad.
I'm curious, how many XB1 owners actually care about this. Some of these post reak of
Ah, the shittiest of shitty arguments.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Oh yeah, I remember that thread. I think I even posted in it! I forgot about it for some reason. Thanks for refreshing my memory. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems things have gotten better since then. I'm not a dev though, so I'm not going to pretend like I know for certain.
I'm curious, how many XB1 owners actually care about this. Some of these post reak of
Well, even if I don't have a huge issue with MS's policies myself, if it's costing the platform games, I certainly care about it.
HalterGratis
Member
"Parity! Parity! My kingdom for parity!"
I'm curious, how many XB1 owners actually care about this. Some of these post reak of
Why wouldn't they care about getting much less games then PS4
Of course it's fucking unreasonable. It isn't in the interest of 99% of 3rd parties, especially indie developers, to piss off their existing loyal customers by tying exclusive content to other platforms. If I buy a game from a developer on PC/PS4/Wii U, it's absolute nonsense that I will arbitrarily be cut off from content for a game I have financially supported from day 1 because Microsoft are pissy about it.
It's pretty clear that developers don't want to engage in it too, given the disparity in indie releases between Xbox and PS4/PC.
Ninja Scooter
Member
Because they are proud MS Beta Testers (since 2002)?
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
why is this being called a "parity clause."
Doesn't parity mean equal?
His statement isn't about parity.
Doesn't parity mean equal?
His statement isn't about parity.
LiquidSolid
Member
Helldivers and Rime are first party Sony titles, they'll go to Xbox when Gran Turismo and Uncharted do (never).
We don't know of many instances because talks are hidden behind NDAs and Microsoft have been making a lot of exceptions to the clause over the last couple of years (which sounds great but the clause still exists, which they can enforce on a whim) but we do know the mere existence of it has turned a number of developers away from even considering the machine, like the Broforce devs.
bananafactory
Banned
I think it has gotten better, to an extent. I feel like more indie games have been coming to X1 lately. The early access program they introduced will also probably help.
But I still think it has a ways to go
krypt0nian
Banned
I'm curious, how many XB1 owners actually care about this. Some of these post reak of
I'm sure getting used to less games gets easier over time.
bananafactory
Banned
I'm curious, how many XB1 owners actually care about this. Some of these post reak of
I have a nice shiny Xbox One in my living room and I absolutely care about this shitty situation
More games for the system I own equals better success for the platform overall equals even more games for my X1.
But they're not games kyrpt0nian, they're dirty indies
krypt0nian
Banned
Not-games.
OrbitalBeard
Member
Oh, ok. Thanks. I wasn't aware Helldivers was funded and published by Sony. I was pretty sure Rime was, so yeah...not sure why I listed it lol.
There needs to be release parity for them to accept a game that's also on another console. Coming out at the same (equal) time. If there's not release parity, then they demand an enhanced edition.
Honest question. Has there been a confirmed case for the XB1 where an Indie Dev approached MS with a game and was turned away simply because they would not add additional content to their game (if launching first on another console)?
Give the outrage that these threads tend to produce I'd like to think there are actual instances of this happening.
None of that was meant to be snarky by the way. I would genuinely like to know so I can understand where the anger is coming from.
Give the outrage that these threads tend to produce I'd like to think there are actual instances of this happening.
None of that was meant to be snarky by the way. I would genuinely like to know so I can understand where the anger is coming from.
What they need is consistency. If I were going to think about putting my game on any platform, I want to know how I am going to be treated and what the result of the conversation will be. Its too ambiguous to say "Come talk to us" as I might have a clear artistic vision (bear with me) that shouldn't be tainted by having to add a Battletoad or other Microsoft IP.
I understand where Phil Spencer is coming from and from a consumer aspect its great. It has meaning. But from a game developer aspect, its not as friendly or clear-cut. As someone that isn't a game dev, I respect Phil Spencer for wanting to provide fun, unique experiences for me but on the otherhand, I would take a game over no game.
I understand where Phil Spencer is coming from and from a consumer aspect its great. It has meaning. But from a game developer aspect, its not as friendly or clear-cut. As someone that isn't a game dev, I respect Phil Spencer for wanting to provide fun, unique experiences for me but on the otherhand, I would take a game over no game.
Similar threads
- Locked